Circassians, Apkhazians, Georgians, Vainakhs,
Dagestanians – peoples of old civilization in the
Caucasus
Merab Chukhua
The general title of this paper reflects a desire to present the great historical past of the indigenous (autochthonous) peoples of the Caucasus, which in most cases is misrepresented in early Russian historiography when the Caucasians were considered to be peoples without culture and history. It was not just about the North Caucasians, it was also relevant to Georgians in the 19th century (and later) [EGH 1970: 5–6]. It may be recalled that the second half of the 20th century is the time when the progressive circles of the Georgian-Caucasian community strengthened their interest towards the historical past of their peoples, native languages, literature and culture. And naturally the tsarism, which aimed at Russifying all the peoples of the Russian empire, at liquidating their national features, did not welcome the process of national self-consciousness in the Caucasus. Articles were published where the national pride of the Georgians and Caucasians was insulted, claiming that these peoples had neither history nor culture, and that they had acquired their culture and script from others later. For a long-time tsarism and Soviet ideology (on which the official ideology of modern Russia is still based and still continues aggressively) proved that the conquest and subjugation of the Caucasian peoples had been implemented for their well-being, that Russia had introduced these chuzezemtsy (‘uncultured peoples’) to the Russian culture and integration with Russia as a voluntary act (though it was, in fact, an occupation/annexation).
I do not intend to discuss politics in this paper, but I will outline the main conclusions about the cultural past of the Caucasian peoples.
Beginning from a little distant past and comparing the linguistic and genetic (Klyosov and Rozhanskii, 2012; Lacan et al, 2011; Klyosov, 2013) data of the Caucasian peoples with each other, it turns out that the ancient population of the Caucasus was formed on the basis of local haplogroups (G, J with different subgroups). These haplogroups also appear in Europe's ancient tombs and partly in the mountainous region as one of the main constituents of the ancient population. The same haplogroup occurs in Etruscans (Italy), Anatolia and the Middle East (Mesopotamia). The question arises – why? One answer could be that in the ancient period, in the 6th and 5th millennia BC, there was an Iberian-Caucasian linguistic and ethnic unity with G and J genetics that stretched from present-day Spain and France via Central and South Europe and Anatolia to the Caucasus and Mesopotamia. It was just here where the genetically and linguistically kindred peoples (together with the Chinese and Egyptians) created the first civilizations of the earth. These include: Sumer, Mittani; Huri; Urartu, Hatti; Hatusa, Etruria; and Iberia, which is clearly supported by ancient language data. Today, it can be said that Georgians stem from this ancient civilization, assuming their historical-genetic link with Sumerians. At the same time, it has been accepted and universally recognized that comparison of linguistic data with each other is the best way to prove the kinship of peoples. This comparison was carried out by a great Georgian scholar Mikhako Tsereteli a hundred years ago (Tseretheli, 1913). Later on the German kartvelologist Heinz Fähnrich studied this issue in depth and concluded that Sumerian and Georgian, as well as Sumerians and Georgians, are kindred peoples and have a common origin. Heinz Fähnrich created an extensive list of Georgian-Sumerian common words (Fähnrich, 1981). I have added a few new entries to the famous list (Table 1):
Like the Georgians, ancestors of the Circassian people formed the ancient states in Anatolia, such as Hatti / Hattusa, which is preserved in the name of the subethnos of the modern
Table 1. List of Georgian-Sumerian common words
Sumerian Kartvelian
AR ‘walking’ ar-, si-ar-ul-i, i-ar-e
AG ‘to build’ ag-eba
AGARA ‘house’ agara-ḳ-i ‘holiday/country house’
GAL ‘great’ Zan gval- ‘total’, Svan gal ‘great’
EME ‘language’ ena
ENGUR ‘large river’ engur-i
UB-UR ‘woman’s breast’ ub-e
US- ‘filling’ vs-eb-a
DIH ‘soil’ tiqa ‘clay’
TAN ‘bright’ ten-d-eb-a
ZID ‘being on/upon’ zeda ‘upper’
SU//SHU ‘hand’ sve ‘wing’
PIRIG ‘lion’ brangv- ‘big bear’
SHENN-UR ‘medlar’ šind ‘dogwood’
SHA ‘middle’ šua
GUDU ‘wailing and keening’ god-eb-a ‘mourning’
KIM ‘doing’ km-n-a, i-km
of Indo-European languages and culture. Here I offer some examples from the Hattian-Apkhazo-Adyghian common vocabulary to demonstrate this genetic kinship (Table 2):
Table 2. List of Hattian-Apkhazo-Adyghian common vocabulary
Hattian Apkhazo-Adyghian
pšun ‘soul’ pša-psu
r-una ‘house’ una
malhip ‘good, kind’ malku ‘kindness’, Rus. dobro (добро) huca-ša ‘blacksmith’ γwǝč ̣ǎ ‘iron’
pinu ‘child’ binu
wu-laš-ne ‘bread’ Abaz. raz-ra ‘to bake’
waašul ‘abundance’ Abaz. Psəl-a ‘fatty’, psəl-a-ra ‘fatness’ Apkhaz. a-psəl-a ‘fatty’
ta-riš ‘horse’ Abaz. tə-šə ‘horse’
wašḫ-ab ‘god’ (pluralia tantum) Ub. wašx-wa ‘god’
The genetic link of Ingushs–Chechens–Dagestanians with Hurrian-Urartu, Elamite languages and peoples has been convincingly been demonstrated by Diakonov-Starostin (1986) and Melikishvili (1964). Thanks to them, the Nakh-Dagestanian traces are observed in the materials and languages of the peoples of the ancient world’s civilization. For instance, it is known that in the area of Zagros, of modern Iran, there was a state Andia, which resembles the word Andi, which is still preserved in the name of one of the Dagestanian ethnic groups Andis, as well as their Andi language. The geographical name (state) of the Nairi-Urartu period Khabkhi is likely preserved in the name of the Ingush community Khamkhi. Such similarity is supported when the core vocabulary elements of the mentioned languages are found to correspond to each other. To demonstrate this I offer some vocabulary parallels in Table 3.
Table 3. List of Hurrian-Urarturian and Nakh-Dagestanian vocabulary
Hurrian- Urarturian Nakh Dagestanian
šin ‘two’ šin šinu ‘two-forked hay-fork’
icxar ‘building’,
‘kitchen’ cxar ‘shed’ Av. caxur ‘granary / barn’ vaši ‘men’ Bats. vaser ‘men’ Arch. bošor ‘man’
niγari ‘dowry/trouseau’ max ‘tax/fee/dues’
Kar. nixu ‘paying’, ‘compensation / reimbursement’ šal (ardi) ‘moon’ sa ‘light’ Darg. šala ‘light’
anšu ‘donkey’ Chech. ans ‘donkey’ Arch. noš [ERG ni̮š-i ‘horse’ šani ‘container’ Chech. šan ‘tray,
salver’
Akhv. šeṭo ‘pan’, Did. šiṭu ‘saucer’
ješə ‘I’ as//az ‘I’ [ERG] Tab. uzu ‘I’ kate ‘barley’ Chech. köta ‘flax’ Tsakh. xəṭa,
Rut. xəṭ ‘barley’
It can also be considered as a successful attempt supporting the kinship of Etruscans and Basques with the Kartvelian-Caucasian world and in the footsteps of renowned scholars Arnold Chikobava, Rismag Gordeziani, I also believe that the Basque and Etruscan languages are not related to a separate Iberian-Caucasian language but they formed an independent branch in the period of Proto-Iberian-Caucasian linguistic-ethnic unity. In the framework of the Basque-Caucasian theory I would also like to raise the problem of defining
1. Basque (Bizkaian) uzen (u-zen=u-sen) ‘name’ : Bur. sén- ‘to say, name’; sénas ‘named’ ~ Cauc: Kartv., Laz o-sin-ap-u ‘speaking, talking’;
2. Basque pimpirina ‘butterfly’ (< -*pir-pir-), Burushaski pherán (Y) ‘moth’ ~ phirán (H, N) ‘spider’ ~ Cauc: Chechen polla ‘butterfly’, Andi pera ‘bee’: Kartv., Zan par-pal- ‘butterfly’;
3. Basque harri, Bur. xóro ‘stone’ ~ Cauc: C.-Kartv. *qir- ‘stone’, Geo. xir-, xir-aṭ-i ‘stony soil’ (Saba), Zan (Megr.) xərə ‘stony soil’ ~ Nakh qer ‘stone; rock’ ~ Circ. (Kab.) q̇ər ‘rock’ ~ Dag. (Gogob.) qeru ‘sandstone’, песчаник;
4. Burushaski bácin (H, N) ‘shank’; ‘(animal’s) hind leg above the hock’ ~ Cauc: Avar púrc:i ‘ham’, Tabasaran bac ‘paw’: Geo. panc-i, Laz penče ‘paw’;
5. Burushaski čardá / čardé ‘stallion‘, Apkh.-Ab. čada ‘ass, donkey’, ~ Cauc: Kartv. *ced-, mo-ced-i*ced-, Svan (< - Zan) čaž < -čaǯ-i ‘horse’;
6. Burushaski bundó (H, N) ‘mountain pasture, mountain grove; boulder; wild, mountain’ ~ bun, (pl.) bundó ~ bunjó (Y) ‘boulder’ ~ Basque mendi ‘mountain’ ~ Cauc: Geo. mdelo, Old Geo. mdelo-van-i, mdelo-js mʒovar-i ‘grass-eater’, Zan (Laz) mindor-i, Megr. mindor-i ‘valley’ ~ C. -Sind. *mərd-a ‘hill’, Ab. marda-ra ‘upland/heights, steep’, Apkh. á-marda ‘hill’ ~ Dag. (Khinal.) məda ‘hill, upland/heights’;
7. Burushaski ge ~ gye (H, N, Y) ‘snow’ ~ Dag. (Av.) goro ‘hail’ ~ Cauc: Kartv. (Megr.) geran-i ‘big snow; Strong frosty winter’, Svan geräm ‘snowdrift’;
8. Burushaski γónderes ~ γondoles (Y) ‘water, that runs over many stones’ ~ Cauc: Dag. (Botlikh) γadaru ‘stream, brook’, Chamal, Godob γada ‘stream/brook’, Lak γatara ‘mountain stream’, etc. Kartv. γard-a, Geo. γarda ‘deep rocky ravine/abyss’ ~ C.-Sind. *γdar- ‘grassy hollow (between mountains)’; Ab. γdr, Apkh. -γdra // -γdr-ra, Abzh. -γdar-ra ‘grassy hollow (between mountains)’ ~ Nakh (Ing.) γandal ‘mountain terrace’; 9. Burushaski huyóo ‘sheep’ = Bsq. ahari ‘ram’ ~ Cauc: C.-Kartv. *xul- ‘sheep (species)’,
Geo. (Khevs.) xul-ia ‘sheep without horns’, xul-a ‘sheep with short ears or without ears’ (GED): C.-Sind. *xwə- ‘sheep’; Ad. xwə-, in the word xwə-rəśw, Kab. xwə- in the word xwə-rəfa ‘sheep skin’, cf. Kab. xwə-ret ‘yelling/shouting for driving out sheep’;
10. Burushaski -s`are ~ *-s`ere ‘night’, in: gó(i)n-s`are (H, N) / gón-s`ere (Y) ‘the whole night, all the night through’ (gon = ‘dawn’) ~ Cauc: Avar sordó ‘night’, Chechen süjr ‘evening’ ~ Kartv. ser-i ‘night, evening’, cf. Hurrian šeri ‘night’;
11. Burushaski γul (H, N) ‘grudge, enmity, hatred’ ~ Cauc: Avar γwel ‘gossip, rumor; abuse’ : C.-Kartv. *γal- ‘bad; magic/witchcraft’, Geo. (Im.) γal-v-a ‘putting an evil eye/jinxing’, m-γal-av-i ‘evil; devil’ : C.-Sind. *γa- ‘enemy’, Ab. a-γa, Apkh. a-γá ‘enemy’;
12. Burushaski tharén-um (H, N) ‘narrow (of clothes)’ ~ Cauc: Avar λeréna-b ~ C.-Kartv. *ditx-el- ‘thin’, Zan (Laz) titxu → // tutxu, Sv. dətxel ‘thin’ ~ C.-Sind. *txa ‘thin’, Ub. txa ‘thin’ ~ Nakh (Batsb) netx ‘thin’, netx-iš ‘into thin…’, netx-dar ‘thinning’…
As we see, the common genetic origin of the given words is beyond doubt. There are many examples to indicate that further research in this area will prove fruitful.
Finally, the natural question arises: How did the modern Iberian-Caucasian peoples – Circassians, Vainakhs and Dagestanians – appear in the North Caucasus when the states of their ancestors (kindred) peoples lived in the south – Hatti / Abeshla in Anatolia, Urartu-Hurritans on the coasts of Vani and Urmia lakes, and Andia – in Iran? There is one answer to this: historically, the gradual and forced migration of peoples from south to the Caucasus in the north took place when militarily more well-organized peoples appeared in the region, primarily of Indo-European origin. The fact that the great migration of the peoples was actually underway is clearly seen in toponyms when migrant Circassian toponyms occur in Western Georgia, and Nakh-Dagestanian – occur in Armenia and Eastern Georgia. It is worth noting that the self-name of modern Chechens Nakhchuo/Nokhchuo, which means ‘of people’, i.e. a representative of the Nakh ‘people’, – (in the same way as German Deutsch denotes one people, when its Latin correspondence tauta denoted ‘people’). The oldest residing trace of the Ingush-Chechens in the south is preserved in the region Nakhchevan in Azerbaijan, as well as in the Armenian historical literature Nakhche-mateank.
In conclusion, I would like to present that in terms of the origin / ethnogenesis of Caucasian peoples Friedrich Müller's provision expressed in 1864 (Müller, 1864: 526–553) is appropriate: the Caucasian (‘Iberian-Caucasian’) languages and peoples are kin to neither to the Indo-European or to the Uralic-Altaic (Turkish-Mongolian) languages and peoples families. Together with Basque, they are remainings of the family of formerly numerous languages and peoples, which were spread throughout the south of Europe, including the land of the Caucasus and its south up to the time when the languages and peoples of Indo-European, Semitic and Uralic-Altaic peoples appeared.
References
Bengtson, J.D. (2011). The Basque: History and Origin. International Journal of Modern
Anthropology 4: 43–59.
Bengtson, J. D. (2017). Basque and its Closest Relatives: A New Paradigm. Association for the Study of Language in Prehistory. Cambridge, Mass.: Mother Tongue Press.
Braun, J. (1994). Xattskij i abxazo-adygskij jazyki (Ekskurs po tablicam); NEKJA, Majkop; 352–357. Braun J. (1998). Euscaro-Caucasica (Historical and Comparative Studies on Kartvelian and
Basque), Philologer Orientalis. 4. Warszawa: Wydawn. Akademickie Dialog.
Braun J. (2002). Lokal’nye prefiksy xattskogo glagola i te že morfemy v abxazo-adygskix jazykax. In: Silva Anatolica: Anatolian Studies presented to M. Popko on the occasion of his 65th
birthday. Warsaw: Agade, pp. 86–94.
Diakonov, I.M., and Starostin, S.A. (1986). Hurro-Urartian as an Eastern Caucasian Language. Münchener Studien zur Sprachwissenschaft. Munich: R. Kitzinger.
EGH (1970). Sakartvelos ist’oriis nark‘vevebi [Essay on Georgian History], Vol. I, Tbilisi: Mecniereba.
Fähnrich H. (1981). Das Sumerische und die Kartwelsprachen. Georgica, H. 4, Jena/Tbilisi, 89–101. Ivanov, V.V. (1985). Ob otnošenii xattskogo jazyka k severozapadnokavkazskim. In: Drevnjaja
Anatolija. Moskva: Nauka, pp. 26–59.
Klyosov, A. A., and Rozhanskij, I. L. (2012). Re-examining the out of Africa theory and the origin of Europeoids (Caucasoids) in light of DNA genealogy. Advances in Anthropology, 2: 80–86. Klyosov, A. A., Tomezzoli, G. (2013). DNA Genealogy and Linguistics.Ancient Europe.Pubilshed
in advances in Anthropology,vol.3,N.2,101–111. Proceedings of the Academy of DNA
Genealogy.
Lacan M., Keyser Ch., Ricaut F.X., Brucato N., Duranthon F., Guilaine J., Crubezy E., Ludes B. (2011). Ancient DNA reveals male diffusion through the Neolithic Mediterranean route.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. June 14, 2011
108 (24) 9788-9791.
Melikishvili G.А. (1964). Urartskij jazyk. Moskva: Nauka (GRVL).
Müller F. (1864). Über die Sprachwissenschaftliche Stellung des kaukasischen Sprachen. In: Orient
und Occident (Forschungen und Mittheilungen), Bd. 2, Göttingen, pp. 526–553.
